Bill Pirkle on music critics:

>Yes, but is the future of art in the hands of these critics? Someone once
>said to me on this list "the future direction of music is what the next
>genius says it will be".

Actually, that's what Milhaud wrote when he first heard the music of
Poulenc.  I probably made the remark without attribution.  If you ask me,
the composer creates the future of music.  The critic talks about the
meaning of that future.

>I would like to think that but it seems likely that is will be what the
>critics say it will be by their choice to promote or destroy.

I think the importance given to critics in that regard is overrated.
There have been many artists who have flourished despite the critics: ALW,
Yanni, Tesh, Brightman, Brickman, Church, McKuen, Grisham, Clancey, etc.
Furthermore, you seem to think of a critic as this spider in the center of
a web pulling all sorts of strings - a Napoleon of Art - to raise this one
and lower that one, according to some plan of self-glorification.  Until
someone demonstrates otherwise (and I emphasize the word "demonstrate"),
I'm perfectly willing to believe that critics sincerely like or dislike
what they say they do.  If you're absolutely convinced that the music of
Philip Glass bites, why would you say any different? If you believe that
Arnold Rosner's music is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why
wouldn't you promote it? The alternative seems to be silence, which helps
nobody at all.

>Would you be afraid of insulting or offending a critic? Should composers
>have have to pander to them? "Make sure you are very nice to him.  He is
>very important.  He is a critic.  Make sure he has a good seat and ask him
>if he needs anything.  Shhhhh, here he comes now, smile" What kind of way
>is that to run a civilization?

Well, I can't call myself a critic, though I've written critical essays
on music - mostly CD and book reviews.  In the course of things, I've
praised many living composers and performers, almost all of whom have
been disturbingly grateful.  As far as I'm concerned, they owe me nothing.
They've already rewarded me by the work they do.  It's my privilege and
great pleasure to interest as many people as I can in their work.  There
have been as well composers that I haven't liked, and in general I've
avoided saying anything on the grounds that "one man's meat is another
man's poison." I think every composer should have a chance to find his
or her audience.  If I can't help, perhaps someone else can.  The only
exceptions I've made have been with composers already firmly established,
but even here I don't enjoy writing negatively.  About the only time I do
write something negative is when I think the hype (as opposed to buzz) goes
uncontested.  Furthermore, I always set myself the goal of illuminating the
essence of a work.  I don't know whether I've ever achieved it, but that's
the idea.  Since I strongly believe that real understanding of a work means
understanding its appeal, disliking a work usually means that I don't
understand precisely that, and consequently I have no hope of reaching my
goal.

>The problem for me in all of this is this.  We have discussed "ad nauseum"
>(sp?) on this list that whether music is good or bad is totally
>subjective, personal, and a matter of taste and life experiences.  How
>then can the opinion of one person possibly be given any weight?

I agree, to a great extent.  It's the opinion of one person.  But there
are opinions and opinions.  The opinion alone isn't worth much.  The
argument that supports the opinion might be worth a great deal.  I used
to regularly disagree with Andrew Porter, but I always thought him a great
critic, precisely because he argued so well and because he challenged me
to look again and to think again about something.  I owe him my taste
for several composers.  Because something is opinion, doesn't mean it's
worthless.  For example, whether or not I need open-heart surgery is an
opinion.  It makes a difference whether that opinion comes from a heart
surgeon or from my uncle Barney, a precision machinist.  Even so, it's just
one surgeon's opinion.  He needs to tell me why he thinks what he does.  If
I'm not a fool, I get the opinions of at least two more doctors, and if I
still can't make up my mind, I challenge each doctor to argue against the
objections of the other.  In the end, it's my decision.  If no doctor gives
me a scenario that corresponds to my symptoms or can show me convincing
signs, I may ignore them all (uh ... uh ... argh!  - the rest is silence).
That seems to me how the ideal reader reads anybody, let alone critics.

>Maybe every printed critique should carry this message.
>
>"Please understand that this is my personal opinion on this composition.
>Also, you should understand that I have never written a symphony, concerto
>or other major composition and am being paid to offer this critique."

The idea that a critic has to be able to compose I think naive.  I
certainly don't believe I have to have led an army in order to criticize
Custer's strategy during the Indian campaign.  Do I have to have written a
novel to think that Tom Clancey's work bites? Why can't I have read a lot
of novels and compare Clancey's work to those I think better? The idea of
payment: I've almost never been paid.  Those few occasions where I have
been paid haven't covered my time.  I doubt any critic is getting rich.
Second, why does payment (as long as it's not a bribe) enter into the
matter at all? It seems to me extraneous.  The critic either convinces you
or not.

>My question, impertinent as it may seem, was perfectly serious.  History
>ultimately judges who was great but can anyone think of a mediocre composer
>who was made great by the critics or a great one whose effect was lessened
>by the critics? Have they been consistently correct in their judgments over
>the long sweep of history?

Have *you* always been right? Again, it's not the critic's job to be right,
but to be fair and just.  I think Pauline Kael one of the greatest American
critics of anything, and I've disagreed with her.  If she hasn't been
consistently "correct," she's been consistent in her view of what makes
a good movie.  I've learned to read her.  I think this true of the
relationship between any reader and a critic.  The long sweep of history
shows artists going up and down in public estimation.  Critics are
responsible for some of this.  Audience taste is responsible for some of
it.  There is no work so bad that people won't like it.  There is no work
so good that people have to like it.  History doesn't judge anything.
People do.  People change their minds.

Steve Schwartz